Beilan v. Board of Public Education

In Beilan v. Board of Public Education (1958), the U.S. Supreme Court was faced with the issue of whether a teacher’s dismissal for incompetence, due to a failure to respond to a superintendent’s questions, violated his rights to due process under the U.S. Constitution. At least one of the superintendent’s questions inquired as to whether the teacher had held a position with the Communist Political Association eight years earlier. Based on the relevancy of the questions posed and the teacher’s failure to respond, the Court, by a five-to-four margin, ruled that the teacher’s dismissal did not deprive him of his due process rights. Beilan is typically placed in juxtaposition with the line of First Amendment loyalty cases placed before the courts as well as with Fifth Amendment self-incrimination claims. Indeed, the facts resemble some of the cases on First Amendment Freedom of Association challenges, but in this instance, the case ultimately rested on whether a teacher may remain silent or decline to respond when the questions related to the fitness of the teacher to serve, and the teacher’s failure to respond amounted to incompetence.

Facts of the Case

The situation leading to the eventual discharge arose in June 1952, when Herman Beilan, a 22-year veteran teacher of the Philadelphia School District, was called into the superintendent’s office to address matters that were presented as concerns about Beilan’s loyalty. The superintendent posed an initial inquiry as to whether Beilan served as the press director of the Professional Section of the Communist Political Association. Instead of responding, Beilan requested time to consult an attorney before responding. After consulting an attorney, in October 1952, Beilan informed the superintendent that he would not answer the initial question or other similar questions on matters related to his political or religious beliefs. The superintendent warned Beilan that failing to respond might result in dismissal, because it raised concern over his fitness to work in the district. A month later, the Board initiated Beilan’s discharge process for incompetence based on his failure to respond to the superintendent’s question and his refusal to answer other related questions.

The Court’s Ruling

Beilan illustrates three legal propositions. First, inquiries relevant to the fitness and suitability of public school teachers are generally legitimate questions to pose. As the Court discussed, teachers have obligations to respond candidly and frankly to questions posed, and there is a general expectation of cooperation. While teachers do not forgo their First Amendment freedoms, a question relevant to teacher fitness and suitability may be asked—as occurred in this case. Second, Beilan made clear that fitness and suitability are not limited to classroom activities. The Court even mentioned that determining fitness includes a broad range of factors. Consequently, a teacher’s refusal to respond to matters of past activities and potentially further inquires of other participation may be asked. Third, based on a state’s statutory interpretation of fitness and suitability, the term “incompetence” may be applied broadly to this situation and serve as the proper grounds for teacher dismissal. In Beilan, the basis of the dismissal was the teacher’s refusal to respond to questions posed by the supervisor; it was not about the teacher’s associations or activities as indicia of teacher loyalty. Accordingly, Beilan’s failure to respond amounted to deliberate and insubordinate behavior, which under Pennsylvania law may terminate a teacher’s employment for incompetence. Finally, Beilan complained that he was denied due process, because he did not receive proper notice of the consequences if he did not respond. However, the Court noted that the record indicated sufficient warnings of the consequences if he failed to respond. In addition, the Court emphasized that Beilan was provided multiple opportunities to consult an attorney.